SavedAdd your journal

Journals / The anatolian journal of family medicine (Online) / 2022 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 1

Evaluation of Management of Patients with Diabetes Mellitus at Primary and Tertiary Healthcare Services

Elif PEHLİVANOĞLU
Hüseyin BALCIOĞLU
Goknur YORULMAZ
Pınar YILDIZ
UĞUR BİLGE
İlhami ÜNLÜOĞLU
Pages
17–22
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: DM is a chronic metabolic disease that requires continuous medical care, and the role of PHS in DM management needs to be increased.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) patients who apply to primary healthcare services (PHS) and tertiary healthcare services (THS).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: This is a cross-sectional study that used information about patients diagnosed with DM for at least 1 year from 25 family health centers considered PHS and Health Application and Research Hospital Endocrinology and Internal Diseases Polyclinics considered THS.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: DM is a chronic metabolic disease that requires continuous medical care, and the role of PHS in DM management needs to be increased.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) patients who apply to primary healthcare services (PHS) and tertiary healthcare services (THS). Methods: This is a cross-sectional study that used information about patients diagnosed with DM for at least 1 year from 25 family health centers considered PHS and Health Application and Research Hospital Endocrinology and Internal Diseases Polyclinics considered THS. A questionnaire including sociodemographic characteristics, DM-related features, and laboratory parameters was applied to the DM patients. Results: This study included 979 patients with DM: 515 (52.6%) patients from THS, and 464 (47.4%) from PHS. The HbA1c value was measured in 509 (98.8%) of the patients who were followed up in THS and 449 (96.8%) of the patients who were followed up in PHS (p=0.026). It was determined that 68 (13.2%) of the patients in the THS and 61 (13.1%) of the patients in the PHS had a history of cardiovascular disease (p=0.979). Hypoglycemia was detected in 66 (12.8%) of DM patients managed in THS and 34 (7.3%) of DM patients managed in PHS (p=0.005). There was no difference between PHS and THS in terms of diabetic retinopathy, diabetic nephropathy, and diabetic neuropathy (p=0.098, p=0.100 and p=0.073, respectively). Conclusion: DM is a chronic metabolic disease that requires continuous medical care, and the role of PHS in DM management needs to be increased.

🔖

Cite This Article

PEHLİVANOĞLU, E., BALCIOĞLU, H., YORULMAZ, G., YILDIZ, P., BİLGE, U., ÜNLÜOĞLU, İ. (2022). Evaluation of Management of Patients with Diabetes Mellitus at Primary and Tertiary Healthcare Services. The anatolian journal of family medicine (Online), Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 1, 17–22. https://ajindex.com/articles/407386

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Acemoğlu H, Ertem M, Bahçeci M, Tuzcu A. Levels of health care utilization in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. EAJM 2006;38(3):89–95
  2. Gücük S, Boztaş G. Aile hekimliği uygulamasının diyabetli hastaların takibine etkileri. Konuralp Tıp Dergisi 2013;5(2):12– 6
  3. Eroğlu M, Barışık V. Approach to diabetes mellitus in primary care. Smyrna Tıp Dergisi 2012;54–61
  4. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The relationship of glycemic exposure (HbA1c) to the risk of development and progression of retinopathy in the diabetes control and complications trial. Diabetes 1995;44(8):968–83
  5. American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes--2013. Diabetes Care 2013;36 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S11– 66
  6. Uğur Altun B. The follow-up of diabetic patient in polyclinic. Trakya Univ Tip Fak Derg 2010;27(1):19–25
  7. Sezgin H, Çınar S. Tip 2 diyabetli hastaların cep telefonu ile takibi: randomize kontrollü çalışma. MÜSBED 2013;3(4):173– 83
  8. İmanova N, Çetinkalp Ş. Diyabet polikliniğine kayıtlı tip 2 diyabetli olguların yüzde yüzünü değerlendirdik; kurtarıcımız insulin. TJDO 2017;2:87–91
  9. Republic of Turkish Ministry of Health. Health Statistics Yearbook 2016. Available at: https://dosyasb.saglik.gov.tr/ Eklenti/13160,sy2016enpdf.pdf?0. Accessed Feb 1, 2021
  10. Yılmaz A, Akan Z, Yılmaz H. Prevalence of diabetes mellitus and affecting factors of diabetes mellitus in adult age group in Van province. J Clin Exp Invest 2011;2(4):392–9
  11. Günalay S, Taşkıran E, Demir B, Erdem S, Mergen H, Akar H. Relationship between treatment modalities, glycemic control, and diabetes complications with risk of depression and anxiety in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. FNG & Bilim Tıp Dergisi 2016;2(1):16–9
  12. Çıtıl R, Öztürk Y, Günay O. Metabolic regulation and related factors in diabetic patients referred to a primary health center in provincial center of Kayseri. Erciyes Med J 2010;32(2):111– 22
  13. Özgür S, Bozkurt İ A, Şahinöz S. GAP bölgesinde halkın sağlık kuruluşlarından yararlanımı
  14. Halk sağlığı kongresi kitabı. Diyarbakır: Dicle Üniversitesi Basımevi; 2002. p. 900–6
  15. Türkiye Endokrinoloji ve Metabolizma Derneği. Diabetes Mellitus Çalışma ve Eğitim Grubu. Türkiye endokrinoloji ve metabolizma derneği diabetes mellitus ve komplikasyonlarının tanı, tedavi ve izlem kılavuzu. 10th ed. Ankara: Miki Matbaacılık; 2018
  16. American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care for patients with diabetes mellitus. Diabetes C